[NOTE: Item numbers are reflective of agenda numbers in the order they are actually
taken up at the meeting.]

The meeting was called to order at 2:32, a quorum being present.

III. Scholarship Awards: This item was taken up first due to the absence of president Mitchell. Jodi Forbes
and Kamran Afshari were announced as winners of the two Academic Senate Scholarship
recipients for the year. Illowsky reminded the group that a student may only win a
total of one award.

I. Approval of Agenda and Notes: The item began with the distribution of an amended version of the notes of the meeting
of June 6th. The amended version contained reference to approval of $250 from the
Senate dues account for thank you gifts for Dan Mitchell and Barbara Illowsky for
their exemplary service as President and Vice President, respectively, of the Senate.
A hearty round of applause greeted the presentation of the gifts.

The notes of the meeting of June 6th were approved as distributed and amended (see
above).

II. Needs and Confirmations: A desire was expressed for three or four more faculty to join the De Anza Technology
Task Force. Cordero, Dolen, and Bryant volunteered.

It was announced that there was no change in the proposal from the Biology, Health,
and Environmental Sciences division and no new information presented, leading the
officers to conclude that, following the normal procedures of the Senate, the item
should not be discussed at the meeting. In response to questions about what happened
and what didn't happen and what were all the reasons behind the officers thinking,
Mitchell said that to open the discussion would have the result of legislating a special
meeting June 20th. Requests for discussion persisted. Mitchell then said that the
proper procedure would be for someone who voted not to approve the proposed committees
to Move to Reconsider. Instead of a motion to reconsider, a request was made for information
about the "whole story". Mitchell reiterated his reluctance to push the rest of the
agenda to June 20th. A motion was made and seconded to extend the meeting as necessary
to deal with the situation. During the discussion on the motion it was MSCU (Goodwin/Bresnan)
to table the motion until the arrival of Rich Hansen, (at approximately 3:30 p.m.)
representing FA.

IV. Senate By-Laws Revisions: After a brief introduction of the item with special emphasis on the unfortunate released
time situation, it was MSCU (Fritz/Cordero) to approve the proposed changes.

VII. Environmental Policy: [Note: This item was taken up out of order due to the fact that the expected representative
from the Curriculum Committee was not yet present.] It was immediately suggested that
the appropriate next step was for this initiative to be of the highest priority. Jensen
Sullivan agreed, saying that we had a moral, economic, and teaching and learning obligation
to act in this area. Bryant offered the helpful notion that something very tangible
was vital for this pursuit. Many heads nodded in agreement. In response, workshops
for all employees were suggested. Having the upcoming Strategic Planning Initiative
adopt environmental sustainability as a high priority with the Senate taking a leading
role was suggested. It was the sense of the Senate to begin with energy management
as per Ed Quevedo's advice.

It was MSCU (Cole/Joplin) to create a taskforce to investigate the Senate's potential
role in developing an environmental plan for the college.

Back to II. With the arrival of Rich Hansen, the item was taken up again. With Stephanie Sherman's
memo stating that FA agreed with her position and the Senate officers stating that
FA agreed with their position, Hansen was asked to clarify FA's position. Hansen said
(already stipulated by Mitchell representing the officers) that two people from the
same department could be on the same tenure review committee. He also said that the
Senate was expected to select appropriate committees for reasons above and beyond
contractual minimum expectations and that the FA leadership shared the concerns of
the Senate officers with regard to these particular committees.

Back to II. Again. Mitchell distributed and then carefully went through a document titled "Senate concerns
regarding proposed Tenure review committees in the Biological, Health, and Environmental
Sciences division".

Reaction to the document was indirect as several Senators attempted to move to a solution.

During the discussion, topics, issues, and concerns including the following were addressed
by Senators and guests:

Is the BHES proposal in the spirit of the Senate's and FA's concerns about diversity
on tenure review committees?

In a complicated situation, should Senate err in support of a department or division?

Will approving these committees set a precedent?

Several noted that the same group of people would be on multiple committees, raising
concerns about committees comparing candidates.

Tenure candidates should have access to perspectives beyond those coming from the
department.

Judy Miner stated that there are safeguards against the same people having too much
power as a result of serving on multiple tenure review committees.

FA (Rich Hansen) stated that confirmation of tenure review committees is a faculty
not an administrative concern.

BHES division representatives stated that more volunteers were solicited from the
departments but nobody came forth. This statement was greeted with some skepticism.

There was a concern over the voting process in the BHES division since a non vote
is counted as a yes.

Mitchell clarified that we are not addressing anyone’s intent but rather the substance
of the process and policy issues.

Despite what occurs with these particular committees, Senate needs to work with divisions
to clarify and revise policies on tenure review committees.

It was MSC Winters/Joplin to approve all five tenure review committees with the understanding
that Senate will return to a discussion to revise division policies concerning tenure
review committees. (The vote was 9 to 7 to approve the committees proposed.)

Mitchell expressed thanks to all present including BHES representatives for working
with Senate and their division on this issue.

V. Course Outlines – Instructional Methodology: The item was held over to the ballot by mail the week of June 20th.

VIII. Course Materials Policy: After reviewing the latest revisions to Appendix 3 of the Policy on Course Materials,
it was MSCU Fritz/Logvinenko to approve Appendix 3. It was then MSCU Chenoweth/Lovgvinenko
to approve the entire Course Materials Policy with the understanding that Senate will
work on Implementation next year.

IX: Scheduling Subcommittee Report: The item was held over.

X. ETAC Policy Review: The item was not taken up.

XI. Graduation: See Good of the Order - item XIII

XII. Introduction of New Senate Officers: The new officers for the 2005-2006 school year are Lydia Hearn for President and
Ben Kline for Vice President.

XIII. Good of the Order:

Senators were encouraged to encourage colleagues to attend graduation. Faculty can
still order caps and gowns free of charge from the Bookstore.

There is to be a talk on the Liberation of Auschwitz on Wednesday. (See Illowsky
for more details.)

De Anza will implement a new "pay to stay" policy to be consistent with Foothill's
practices. It has gone through many iterations, but the most recent one is that students
will have to pay tuition and fees a few days before the first day of school.